Socrade

@maxhqns : thanks for your quality answer, you are almost 100% right. I don't want to become an academic (I already have a Phd and philosophy is not that important to me) I just want to have quality interactions about this model and maybe develop it further, for the sole reason it looks like a major novelty in Totality modeling. It's really a shame I'm the only guy knowing that the mater/life/thought reality's structure and self-construction can be described so elegantly, that's all and that does not rely to me : If I knew how to stay as anonymous as the guy who designed Bitcoin, I would go for it. I believe I can easily break the thing in "component arguments" but have no idea of the best way to do it and where to present these partial points of vue. I hope I'll know more when reading something about "dialetheism" . (edit : just read a little about it but will not go further because I have solid contempt about language oriented thinking in Philosophy. Language modeling is great in mathematics/computer science but damn stupid in philosophy : it's just a necessary evil for communication of ideas. People do that because they have some access to the metaphysic questioning -ie they somewhat feel the psychic and even the life phenomena essence is a complete mystery- but zero access to a working metaphysic thinking and at some moment they give up and fall back to language thinking for the sole and pathetic reason it's visible/heard thought)

By "best" I mean real interest and knowledge in the content of ontological/philosophical systems, ie what they says about reality : how reality as a all is structured and how it works or constructs itself. I have to put this strong because most if not all of academics presentations about ontology or metaphysics are in fact meta-metaphysics ie epistemology : they only talk about the conditions of possibilities of a possible speech about the all of reality that never comes. Very irritating and that makes their saying cumbersome. I don't want to interact with this kind of scholars especially if they are language oriented (analytical or any philosophical position that emphasize or essentialize language, I can't stand that) I made-up a system, a mater/life/thought ontology, but in computer science. (if by extraordinary you tried hard by yourself to made-up one, I know you started from scratch, in complete vacuum because you discovered there exists nothing convincing and I also know you didn't succeed, sorry; so if I say the solution I found works fine and then it's the best, somewhat by default, only you can understand there is zero bullshiting or megalomania here. And for those who didn't tried please wipe the former sentence from your mind now ) I tried to transfer it to the philosophical world but I discovered that people, including well known academics specialized in metaphysics , are not interested at all in content. Exactly like in art, especially painting, their mind is only activated by dominance : they only want to hear the dominant words : "Hegel", "Heideger", "Derrida" etc. like "Picasso" in painting. Content is indifferent and simply doesn't exist without attributes of dominance. That's why I concluded I have to paint this system with attributes of grandeur and institution via a Phd in a place and with a director who already has this attribute, ie has access to well known international publications and conferences. I vaguely remember having heard of an academic, a woman if I'm correct, who do the mater/life/thought segmentation of reality but I couldn't find back the reference (was a radio talk a few years ago). Thanks for any suggestion.